MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288489412 · doi:10.1186/s40359-022-00893-7

The psychosocial needs of adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients, and associated interventions: a scoping review

2022· review· en· W4288489412 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsPsychosocialCINAHLPsycINFOPsychological interventionPsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineInclusion (mineral)MEDLINEPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Renal transplantation is considered the gold standard treatment for end-stage kidney disease. Adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients have the highest rate of graft loss amongst transplanted patients. It is largely accepted this is due to psychosocial and behavioural difficulties, which impact adherence to prescribed therapies. This phenomenon is not isolated to a particular healthcare system having been observed in multiple countries across different continents. It is a global issue of concern. We sought to review the psychosocial needs of these patients, and the interventions designed to meet these needs. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted based on Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage framework. Eligibility criteria included primary studies of any type that investigated the psychosocial needs of adolescent and/or young adult renal transplant recipients or studies which examined interventions designed to address these needs. Search strategies were developed and conducted on PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were critically reviewed using a descriptive-analytical narrative method. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies met our inclusion criteria, 30 of which related to psychosocial needs, and the remainder examined psychosocial interventions. Four main themes were derived from our analysis of psychosocial needs literature, as follows: the need for (1) emotional support, (2) acceptance, (3) direction, (4) equality in healthcare. 2 main themes emerged from analysis of psychosocial intervention literature, namely: psychosocial (1) capability, (2) assessment. Despite the evidence that graft health is strongly associated with psychosocial wellbeing, findings revealed a significant lack of literature investigating how best to meet psychosocial needs. Trends were observed amongst intervention studies, namely interventions of novel and non-evidenced based design, with the aim of improving medication adherence through organisational strategies and education. However, literature regarding psychosocial needs showed non-adherence to therapies was not simply a result of disorganisation or lack of understanding, but rather, was founded on a recipient's idiosyncratic relationship with their prescribed therapies e.g., psychological, social or financial reasons for non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should be directed at investigating the efficacy of evidence-based interventions that empower the individual patient to overcome their specific barrier to an optimal relationship with their therapies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it